0

Some different sentences use for in a manner distinct from the usual:

  1. I was in for a rude shock in college.
  2. You are good at it for a girl.
  3. She does it because for you.

The 3rd seems to be a bit weird.

Also, there are some sentences which seem to be missing the preposition for ,

  1. Draw (for) me some money.

The 'draw' refers to the painting.

  • Draw refers to painting ? – Cardinal Jul 5 '16 at 17:51
  • 2
    #3 is ungrammatical. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Jul 5 '16 at 18:01
  • 1
    #3 should be either because of, or without because entirely. – Cascabel Jul 5 '16 at 18:03
  • 1
    #4 has to do with di-transitive verbs, and the placement of direct and indirect objects. – Cascabel Jul 5 '16 at 18:05
  • Anubhav, where from did you get these sentences? Does that source say these are rare uses of preposition for? I'm asking because I want to know. Last time, if I remember correctly, I think you told you were reading SP Bakshi, right? Just curious to know if this topic is from that book too, or from similar book? – Man_From_India Jul 5 '16 at 23:39
5

Example 1: In for is an idiom, which functions as a predicative adjective that takes an object. It means "expected to receive" - the thing to be received is usually unwelcome, but not always.

Example 2: This is the OED's meaning 27 for 'for': " 27. In proportion to, considering; considering the nature or capacity of; considering what he, she, or it is, or that he, etc. is so and so." It gives an example from 1753: " A man of an excellent character for a Lawyer."

Example 3: This is deviant. I know of no variety of English in which this is grammatical.

Example 4: This is a standard pattern for ditransitive verbs: the indirect object may either come after the direct object, with a preposition:

Draw some money for me.

or precede the direct object without a preposition:

Draw me some money.

The typical indirect object has preposition "to", but examples with "for" are very common. In fact, as in this case, a "for" phrase can be added to many predicates with benefactive sense, and this pattern is then available:

He baked a cake.

He baked a cake for me.

He baked me a cake.

  • In 'precede the direct object without a preposition:', why not a 'for' is required?Which rule? – Anubhav Singh Jul 6 '16 at 2:51
  • @AnubhavSingh read more about ditransitive and monotransitive verb. – Man_From_India Jul 6 '16 at 3:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.